Verrrry suspicious ...
Former congressman Eric Massa said Saturday that someone forged a $40,000 salary increase for his chief of staff, who has accused the ex-lawmaker of sexual harassment.
The New York Democrat also denied authorizing a check from a campaign account in the same amount to the same official, Joe Racalto, according to a statement released by Massa's attorney. Racalto's attorney denied the allegations and said both transactions were done at Massa's direction.
The exchange came one day after Racalto reavealed he had filed a sexual harassment complaint against the former congressman, who announced March 5 that he would resign.
"The amount of $40,000 was determined solely by Mr. Racalto," said the statement to The Associated Press. "Mr. Racalto never communicated the $40,000 amount of the payment to Mr. Massa."
Massa's statement also alleged that "someone forged then-Congressman Massa's signature on forms raising Mr. Racalto's own salary as a member of the congressman's personal staff from $120,000 per year to the maximum permissible level of $160,000." The statement did not say when that happened.
"These matters continue to be under review and the appropriate authorities will be provided with all the relevant information," Massa's campaign said.
Massa's attorney Milo Silberstein declined to answer any questions Saturday after issuing the campaign's statement.
Racalto is among those who have accused Massa of sexual harassment.
Racalto's lawyer, Camilla McKinney, denied Massa's allegations and questioned the timing of the charges in light of Racalto's sexual harassment complaint.
"The timing of the allegations is highly questionable and suspicious," McKinney said in a telephone interview Saturday with AP. "The congressman is trying to discredit someone who is making a sexual harassment complaint against him."
McKinney said the $40,000 pay raise was authorized by Massa. "The pay raise was authorized by congressman Massa at the congressman's direction," she said.
McKinney added that the $40,000 check from the campaign to Racalto was also authorized by Massa. "It would be ridiculous for anyone in the campaign to cut a check for $40,000 without the approval of congressman Massa," she said. Not necessarily unheard of, but certain ridiculous ...
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Dare we fergit how WILY DASTARDLY SPACE ALIENS, or TWAS IT COMMIES-PINKOS, kidnapped God-fearing US Congresscritters and forced them to have sex and sleepovers with not-their-wives-or-regular girlfriends wimin in BORDELLOS!
Rather than protesting the greatest expansion of government in U.S. history, Tea Party attendees should be thanking Big Government for all it's done. At least, that's what President Obama thinks.
As the Associated Press reported Thursday, the president said he was "amused" by the Tea Party faithful gathering in cities across America to protest soaring government spending, ballooning debt and the explosion in taxes that will be needed to pay for it all.
"You would think they'd be saying thank you," he said.
And why should they be thankful? As the president himself said on his weekly radio address a week ago, "one thing we have not done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000; that's another promise we kept."
In fact, that wasn't his promise at all.
Here's what candidate Obama really said in September of 2008: "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Got that? "Not any of your taxes." The claim of no tax hikes on those below $250,000 as a result of the current administration's policies is completely and utterly false.
A report from the House Ways & Means Committee's GOP members notes that, since January 2009, Congress and the president have enacted $670 billion in tax increases. That's $2,100 for each person in America. At least 14 of those tax hikes, the report says, break Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000. Roughly $316 billion of the tax hikes -- 14 increases in all -- hit middle-class families, the report says.
This comes in addition to recent data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office showing U.S. spending and indebtedness growing at an alarming rate. Government spending now totals 25% of GDP, a quarter above its long-term average. By 2035, it will hit 34% of GDP at current trends -- a 70% increase in the real size of government in just 25 years.
More spending means more debt. In 2008, total federal publicly held debt was about $8.5 trillion -- an amount Uncle Sam took 220 years to accumulate. By 2020, that will soar to $20.3 trillion, a 139% jump. No surprise the Government Accountability Office last week said the U.S. is on "an unsustainable long-term fiscal path."
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He is clueless about our passion for freedom in this country? Many good people have died in the name of freedom (ours and others) over the past several centuries.
#3
As the Associated Press reported Thursday, the president said he was "amused" by the Tea Party faithful gathering in cities across America to protest soaring government spending, ballooning debt and the explosion in taxes that will be needed to pay for it all.
Wonder how "amused" he is with his recent drop in the polls and the pending conservative victory in the upcoming November election?
No, but Marie Antoinette did. I think she got a haircut or something.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
04/18/2010 14:55 Comments ||
Top||
#9
No, but Marie Antoinette did. I think she got a haircut or something.
True a haircut. Of course what she was doing is pointing out that there was no bread due to price controls, while the uncontrolled price of cake allowed allowed a surfeit of flour into the fancy confectionary industry. Cake was relatively cheap.
#10
I think cake was also a colloquial name for a low-quality bread.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
04/18/2010 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Brioche, I think it was, specifically. Brioche is like stale, tasteless cake. Bread is superior, IMO. And to split hairs further, Marie Antionette didn't say 'let them eat cake' anyway.
#13
It will be interesting to see how quickly they try to progress through the Cap and Trade then VAT wickets.
Following their trail William Tecumseh Sherman style will be difficult. The meme is always that cutting taxes is too expensive. In actuallity the expense is the government spending.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/18/2010 20:33 Comments ||
Top||
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, has introduced legislation to repeal the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, a damaging relic from Jimmy Carter's presidency. The CRA empowered left-wing activist groups like ACORN and the Greenlining Institute to use claims of racism to force banks and other financial institutions to make loans and mortgages on the basis of the ethnic and demographic makeup of neighborhoods instead of the creditworthiness of borrowers. At the time, this tool of political blackmail was cleverly camouflaged by its proponents behind the righteous cause of ending redlining, the practice in which bankers allegedly drew red lines around certain local neighborhoods, putting them off-limits for loans and mortgages. The redlined areas were typically populated by minority residents, usually African-Americans or Hispanics.
But the CRA didn't actually ban redlining, it just reversed the money flow's direction, as decisions on loans and mortgages are still made on the basis of the ethnic identity of the recipients' neighborhoods. (Ultimately, this approach led banks and commercial lenders to invest massively in subprime mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which in turn caused the economic meltdown of 2008). The CRA gave ACORN, Greenlining and legions of similar groups leverage to extort loans and mortgages in return for not conducting devastating PR and political pressure campaigns designed to libel offending banks and bankers as racists. If federal regulators could be convinced that a bank was guilty of racism, it could be prevented from acquiring or merging with other banks. The law created a powerful incentive for banks to pay off the activists groups to make them "go away." When mobsters do the same thing, prosecutors call it a "protection racket." When groups like the Greenlining Institute do it, they call it "social justice." Tori Richards of California Watchdog and the Washington Examiner's Mark Tapscott have documented in a five-part series ending today on page 33 how Greenlining perfected this process. (See the box for links to all five days.)
Aside from the fact CRA created a legalized form of bank robbery, Hensarling points out that in the years since its passage, "interstate banking, branch banking, Internet banking, risk-based pricing; all have helped revolutionize and democratize credit in our society as never before. If you can gain access to the Internet at a public library, if you can have access to a telephone to call a toll-free number, you can unlock countless credit opportunities that, again, for credit cards and home loans, were simply unavailable 33 years ago. Market competition ... now provides low-income Americans with a platform to access competitive bids and financial products all across the United States, not just in localized geographic communities. In fact, the concept of a localized geographic community for banks is simply antiquated." So is the CRA and it should be repealed before it causes any more damage to the U.S. economy.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
I read through the state by state blurbs. I think the summaries underestimate the potential outcome of the upcoming election. The summary on Mass, for instance, still indicates that it is solidly in camp Obama ... yet Scott Brown is in the Senate.
What may be happening is that general pollling will continue to show support for Obama among people that will fill out Novemeber ballots at a rate of maybe 30%. On the other hand, folks that are disgusted enough with the stimulus, bailouts and Obamacare to show up at a tea party will turn out in November at a 90% rate or greater.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/18/2010 20:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I hope so, Super Hose. But Brown's rather pointedly distancing himself from the tea parties, for whatever that's worth.
Four months after becoming dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan sent an e-mail to students and faculty lamenting that military recruiters had arrived on campus, once again, in violation of the school's anti-discrimination policy. But under government rules, she wrote, the entire university would jeopardize its federal aid unless the law school helped the recruiters, despite the armed forces' ban on openly gay members.
"This action causes me deep distress," Kagan wrote that morning in October 2003. "I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy." It is, she said, "a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order."
Her stance put Kagan squarely in sync with professors at Harvard and other law schools -- and wholly out of sync with the Supreme Court, which later ruled unanimously that the schools were wrong. Four years after that ruling, Kagan, now the U.S. solicitor general, is a leading candidate to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the nation's highest court. Conservatives have signaled that if President Obama nominates her, her stance on this issue dangles -- like perhaps no other in her career -- as ripe fruit opponents would grab to thwart her confirmation.
"For someone who has been so guarded on so many issues, she used strikingly extreme rhetoric. 'Moral injustice of the first order' would seem fit for something like the Holocaust," said Ed Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. "This is one issue that provides some jurisprudential clues as to how much her reading of the law will be biased by her policy views. If she is the nominee, that is an angle that I would press."
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
..despite the armed forces' ban on openly gay members.
Another classical misdirect. It's federal law. Expect 'social justice' to trump the Constitution as the 'law' clearly articulates that its Congress' power and authority in the issue.
Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern was arrested Friday -- handcuffs and all -- and union members cheered as their longtime leader was taken away in a police van.
Stern, undisturbed, smiled with pride. After all, his arrest was real but prearranged with Maryland police as part of a union rally taking aim at food and facilities management services company Sodexo Inc.
"It sure is a beautiful day to get arrested," Stern said in a speech to the roaring crowd before being handcuffed alongside fellow protester actor Danny Glover in front of Sodexo's headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md. The possible charge those two and the 10 others arrested face: trespassing, said P.R. Starks, a public information officer with Montgomery County police. All 12 -- self-named the "dirty dozen" because of their call to "clean up" Sodexo -- were taken in police vans to a nearby station where they would be issued citations, Starks said. They were later released.
Sodexo said in a statement that the SEIU is conducting a "smear campaign" of misinformation against the company in an attempt to drive out other unions that have historically operated within the food service industry. Sodexo said most of the participants at these "orchestrated events" have not been Sodexo employees, "but rather students and others who have been incited by SEIU." Sodexo said it respects the rights of its employees to unionize or not unionize as they choose, and denied allegations of interference.
The protest marked the end of an attention-grabbing week for Stern, who announced his resignation Wednesday amid buzz about his union's increasing financial strains and costly legal battles with rival unions. In a videotaped departure message, Stern boasted about his union's aggressive organizing tactics, which helped make it the fastest-growing union in the country.
The 59-year-old labor leader still isn't saying what's next for him, but he said Friday in a brief interview before his speech at the rally that he'll continue to work on the White House Bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Commission and at some point "get a job." He also said he'll stay involved in SEIU activities, and declared in his speech that "the labor movement is going global" just like capital, trade and finance have. Sodexo, a global company, is "exhibit A" of the movement to win fair wages and stop intimidation of workers who want to organize, Stern said.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
his arrest was real but prearranged with Maryland police as part of a union rally
What are these celebrity arrests? Now they can say "I sacrificed, I got arrested for the "cause?" Give them the real thing, "Bubba, bad food, body cavity search, and cockroaches."
#2
Prearranged arrest? HA! Not exactly Chicago, 1968. Putting it all on the line for "the workers", huh, Andy?
Too bad some cop didn't get the word and Andy ended up with a nightstick upside the head a few times and a faceful of pepper spray.
What a wimp.
#3
I would think it would be grand to get a bunch of large men, who would show up at one of these events with axe handles, and just thump the living heck out of the protesters before the police arrive.
Strictly as free lancers, with no connection to whoever was being protested, this would create get upset and consternation among the professional protester class.
If nothing else, it would take a lot of the smirk off their smarmy little faces.
Hints of re-election trouble for U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer come from a 65-year-old travel agent from this leafy Los Angeles suburb who's a fellow Democrat.
Taxes and the national debt are too high, President Barack Obama has proved a disappointment and the Democratic Party needs new faces, according to Helen Sargent.
Boxer, who's seeking a fourth term in Washington this fall, "has been there too long," says Sargent in Westlake Village, which Boxer carried by just 56 votes in 2004. "All politicians have a shelf life."
Those are troubling words for Boxer, who won in a 20-point landslide six years ago, but now faces the fight of her political career. The nation's economic woes - particularly intense in hard-hit California - and a difficult electoral year for Democrats have created a rough challenge for the 69-year-old liberal Democrat.
In a clear sign of her difficulties, President Barack Obama heads to Los Angeles on Monday to help raise money for Boxer, who is running about even with several potential Republican challengers, an alarming sign in the Democratic-leaning state.
The proceeds from twin fundraisers will be split between Boxer and the Democratic National Committee; ticket prices range from $100 for a reception to $17,600 for dinner with the president.
Voter frustration and outright anger is widespread in California, where the 12.6 percent unemployment rate tops the national average, home foreclosures have hit record highs and a budget crunch has led to deep cuts in the state's college system.
In another Democratic-leaning state - Massachusetts - Republican Scott Brown captured Sen. Edward Kennedy's Senate seat in January.
"The times are working against the kind of politician Barbara Boxer is," said Mark DiCamillo of the independent Field Poll. Liberals are associated with the growth of government and "that is really counter to the prevailing mood in the public."
Boxer will share a stage with a president whose popularity outshines her own in California, even as his standing in national polls has fallen. Democrats also are quick to point out that the economy is slowly improving and Republicans are tangled up in a messy and expensive primary that could leave the nominee wounded and broke. Boxer faces only token opposition in the June 8 primary.
Westlake Village, about 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, is the kind of swing-voting community where statewide elections are often won or lost in California. Republicans hold an edge in registration here but Obama carried the city in 2008, as did Boxer in 2004.
Boxer is as beloved by her party's left wing as she is despised by conservatives.
Her Republican rivals - state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, businesswoman Carly Fiorina and former Rep. Tom Campbell - have pilloried her relentlessly. Fiorina's campaign calls Boxer "the Bully of the Senate" and has depicted her in an ad as a floating hot air balloon casting ominous shadows over the state.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I believe I may see the day that Boxer gets booted before I leave this state for good. 50-50 at this point. DeVore is a good conservative. Fiorina has weekpoints but plays well to the CA electorate. Campbell is too much the career pol, but knows the landscape. That's how I see it. My bet... Fiorina in the primary. Maybe not my first choice, but my money pick. In CA, that's as good as it gets.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
04/18/2010 0:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Boxer, who's seeking a fourth term in Washington this fall, "has been there too long,"
Come on Californians, do the rest of the country a great service and vote "NO" for "Call me Senator" Boxer.
#8
Is he the one who is rumored to have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood or am I thinking of another Campbell?
You're thinking of the right Campbell, Gomez Threter7450. See here. But he's running as a Republican, so that won't affect the primary, at least. It sounds like your election is going to be a matter of pulling the lever for the lesser of evils. Bottom line, as long as anyone other than Boxer wins, they won't have the seniority to accomplish much in their first term, and can be voted out as necessary before the next one. (Yes, I know the odds aren't good for voting out, but one can hope that justice will eventually prevail.)
In his weekly address, President Obama called Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's mantra that the financial regulatory reform bill would amount to a bailout bill a "cynical and deceptive" argument.
"The leader of the Senate Republicans and the chair of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee met with two dozen top Wall Street executives to talk about how to block progress on this issue," Obama said. "Lo and behold, when he returned to Washington, the Senate Republican leader came out against the common-sense reforms we've proposed. In doing so, he made the cynical and deceptive assertion that reform would somehow enable future bailouts -- when he knows that it would do just the opposite."
After leaving a meeting with the president and other congressional leaders on Wednesday McConnell said he remained unconvinced that the package passed out of the Senate Banking Committee would avoid other bailouts.
"Where we are now, if we are left with the Chairman Dodd bill that came out of the Banking Committee on a straight party line vote, is that it is a bill that actually guarantees future bailouts of Wall Street banks," McConnell said in the White House driveway following the meeting. "It will lead to endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street banks."
Today, Obama countered, "We're going to put in place new rules so that big banks and financial institutions will pay for the bad decisions they make -- not taxpayers. Simply put, this means no more taxpayer bailouts."
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart told ABC News Saturday that "it's especially disappointing for the president to attack Sen. McConnell for raising concerns about the bailout loopholes in the bill when just last night the White House agreed with Sen. McConnell and its own Treasury secretary and asked Senate Democrats to remove the $50 billion fund. Sen. McConnell takes the president at his word that he wants a bill that does not expose taxpayers to future bailouts and will not destroy job creation. And we are committed to working with anyone willing to achieve that."
In his address, President Obama said he hopes to leave the politics aside so that Democrats and Republicans can work together. But he also indicated that he would move forward without Republicans support, if need be.
"This is certain: One way or another, we will move forward," President Obama said. "This issue is too important. The costs of inaction are too great."
The president said that if things remain unchanged in the financial system, "we'll doom ourselves" to repeat the last financial crisis.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
The man considered one of the premier sculptors of Bill's Clinton's re-election in 1996 predicted Friday night that Republicans would take control of the Senate and the House in mid-term elections this fall.
Noting that he keeps reading quotes from GOP leaders such as Republican National Chairman Michael Steele that they are "optimistic" about the elections this fall, Dick Morris told a packed dinner at the Pennsylvania Leadership Council: "I've got news--it's not even going to be close, guys."
Fresh from addressing a 4,000-strong Tea Party in Arkansas, Morris--best-selling author, syndicated columnist, and Fox News commentator--held the PLC audience spellbound with his bold predictions.
"Republicans will win the Senate with 52 or 53 seats," Morris said without hesitation, "and the House will go Republican by 10 to 20 seats."
The former Clinton strategist-turned-Republican pointed out that it will take a minimum of 39 seats to change from Democrat to Republican for the GOP to win a majority. Seven of those 39, he predicted, "will come from right here in Pennsylvania--the epicenter of change."
Beginning with a Republican pick-up of the Western Pennsylvania seat of the late Democratic Rep. John Murtha in the special election May 18, Morris said that the GOP's gains in the Keystone State would come from unseating Democratic Representatives Kathy Dahlkemper, Jason Altmire, Patrick Murphy, Christopher Carney, and Paul Kanjorski. (Although that ads up to only six, others at the dinner told me Morris came to his figure of a gain of seven by automatically factoring in the likely pickup by GOPer Pat Meehan of the Delaware County district vacated by Senate hopeful Joe Sestak).
As to the claims of Altmire (who voted twice against the Obama-backed healthcare bill) that he is a "moderate Democrat," Morris recalled his days as a "moderate Democrat" in the 1990's working with Bill Clinton on issues such as "tough love" welfare reform and cutting the capital gains tax.
"Today, the moderate Democrat is as extinct as a do-do," declared Morris, "I am extinct." He said that in the Democratic Party of today, "you are either an Obama-Reid-Pelosi Democrat or you are a Republican. I am a Republican." Morris also quoted Ronald Reagan that "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."
And even if moderate Democrats weren't extinct, he added, "the first vote any of them would cast would be to make Nancy Pelosi speaker, put [California Rep.] Henry Waxman in charge of energy policy, [Mississippi Rep.] Bennie Thompson in charge of homeland security, and [Massachusetts Rep.] Barney Frank in charge of the banking and financial industry. No other vote matters after that one."
The leftward drift of the Democratic Party under Obama ("the most liberal President in history," Morris said) and its agenda of "nationalilzing healthcare, cap and trade, and card check" was the reason he felt Republicans would have a banner political year in 2010.
In suggesting that clashes between a Republican Congress and Obama could lead to a government shutdown similar to that of 1995, Morris predicted that congressional Republicans would not experience the blame they did 15 years ago. He explained that "people didn't blame President Clinton because he was not trying to raise spending. Everybody knows that Barack Obama has raised spending and will blame him. And we will win."
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hope he's right. Dick has been known to be off before.
IMTrade was a great predictor in the last couple of election cycles and right now they have the house with a slim Dem majority after November. I'd rather Morris were the one who was right, but his record doesn't match theirs for accuracy.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
04/18/2010 7:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
#1 Hope he's right. Dick has been known to be off before.
The passage of Obamacare would be a most recent example.
Posted by: RIcky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
04/18/2010 8:32 Comments ||
Top||
#4
A Republican landslide? Now there's hope and change I can get behind. I have seen all kinds of estimates at this time--anywhere from 20-100 seat pickup in the House. Karl Rove, says 35 seats in the House and the door's open for more. Forty is the number that sends Pelosi packing from Speaker.
#7
I think the GOP gets the house (no more gavel, bitch) and gets close in the Senate, but it's still a long way til November. Stay angry, stay motivated. Obama's our best motivator
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2010 10:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
With Rasmussen reporting that Republicans are favored on the Congressional Generic Ballot by 9% and 58% of the country want to repeal Obamacare, it makes sense to me that with a good turnout (53%-54%) on election day, we could see a landslide.
Rothenberg Political Report yesterday moved 44 seats towards Republicans...musta just about killed 'em to have to report that.
We don't need Morris to tell us how the wind is blowing, but if his comments fire up the base, let him spew.
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2010 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#10
IMTrade was a great predictor in the last couple of election cycles...
I agree Intrade has been accurate in the past. Check out the graphs for Dems/Repubs winning control in the midterms (steady downward trend for the Dems, steady upward trend for Reps...as Frank has pointed out, we're still 7 months away from the election.
#11
Its almost better for the Repubs if they get 39 in the house (1 short of the majority) and get the senate to 50-50
1 vote in the House is not a governable margin, and a tie in the senate means Biden has to cast the deciding vote on tons of things, and all of a sudden Lieberman gets to payback the Dem leadership by being the single most important vote in the Senate. Its a nightmare for the Dem part. None of the power, none of the credit, all of the blame.
The worst of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama legislation effects have yet to hit, and when they do, whoever is in power will get blamed. That means the Dems in 2012. Each and every Dem will be vulnerable in the house because they will have to vote for speaker. The Dems have a huge amount of vulnerable Senators in 2012, and they will all be accountable for mess that will happen in the Senate. And even better, Obama himself gets tied directly to every legislative screw-up in the senate, because Biden will be on display every major vote making it impossible for Obama to stay "detached" from the crap that goes on, yet ineffective in their ability to ram bad legislature through.
As a bonus, credit for good stuff can plausibly be claimed by the GOP by showing how they put a halt to the Dems tax-spend and corruption.
This will lead to a GOP sweep of the House, Senate and Presidency in 2012 by a significant (and much more conservative) majority.
Any GOP majority prior to that sets the GOP up for taking the blame and Obama has the MSM blame "GOP Obstructionism" for any failures.
So in many ways its better that the GOP *not* get its majority in either house.
#14
I agree with Frank and Gomez, November is a long way off. Several things can happen between now and then. Let's just hope that they're all bad for Barry & the Dems.
Posted by: Jefferson ||
04/18/2010 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
#15
What OldSpook said: worst case scenario for Obama is that the Republicans take back just enough seats to give the Democrats a narrow majority in both houses. That will effectively prevent him from getting most of his legislation through, while leaving his party to take the blame for everything.
Oh, he try to blame everything on them (and probably Bush too). He's doing that right now. But it won't sell to anyone but the party faithful.
#16
Old Spook and fellow 'Burgers:
The narrow Dem majority would be horrible for America. We have seen with healthcare how the Dems can disregard popular opinion and bribe/threaten legislators into falling in line.
We have to stop them now and not leave them any loopholes to squeeze through. They absolutely no regard for democracy or any law what so ever.
Vote Early! Vote Often!
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
04/18/2010 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Pollsters aren't seeing the big shift yet. Many of the races that will flip seats haven't had primaries yet, and it's hard to poll "TBD."
So, I'm betting for a big shift that leaves the R's running Congress. And while I love OS's thought of tying the Dems' legislation around their collective necks and hanging them with it, the single most important thing we need to accomplish next year is the repeal of ObamaCare. We'll need the biggest majorities we can get to do it.
Last thought; the most important thing this year is to elect the *right* Republicans. If we send a bunch of McCains and Grahams to DC then we've wasted the biggest opportunity and suffered the biggest setbacks in a generation.
The Republican Revolution or Revolution of '94 is what the Republican Party of the United States dubbed their success in the 1994 U.S. midterm elections, which resulted in a net gain of 54 seats in the House of Representatives, and a pickup of eight seats in the Senate. The day after the election, Democratic Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama changed parties, becoming a Republican. The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the Republicans gaining control of both the House and the Senate in January 1995. Republicans had not held the majority in the House for forty years, since the 83rd Congress (elected in 1952)
The Republicans came up with "A Contract with America" which focused Americans in a way that Republicans have been unable to focus voters since. The stage was set for a Republican president. My concern is that good, principled people get elected who won't be ruined by Washington. Another concern is that either party in power tends towards corruption with time.
#19
The narrow Dem majority would be horrible for America.
Respectfully I disagree. A second Obama term would be horrible for America. A narrow Dem majority would simply result in a lot of gridlock and IMAO a Republican president being elected in 2012.
But I wouldn't worry too hard. It's not like I'm suggesting we don't try hard to get our people elected or anything like that. Just giving a hypothetical.
#20
We need enough of a majority of principled conservatives (no matter their party) who will be able to repeal ObamanationCare.
I don't want to die at a not-so-old age because some bureaucrat decides I'm not worth enough (while providing unlimited healthcare for their relatives - which you know they will - and for illegal aliens).
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/18/2010 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#21
"REPUBS FIGHT-WIN THE WARS, DEMOCRATS SPEND THE PEACE", as a pol adage goes.
Iff the above holds true, then Dickie's assessment may be interpreted as AMER MAINSTREAM anticipating SERIOUS MAHA-RUSHIAN GEOPOL TURMOIL IFF NOT WAR(S) TO BREAK OUT ONCE IRAN + MILTERRS DECLARE THEIR NUKES IN 2012???
Everything else is just nice-to-know BLUFF-N-FLUFF.
No matter what happens, Obamacare is NOT going to be repealed with Obama in office.
The GOP will NOT get a veto-proof majority in the Senate, and its doubtful they will get that margin in the House, so any talk of repealing Obamacare is stupid until that changes.
The absolute BEST chance we have at rollgin back Obamacare is to keep the dems wiht a 1 seat amjority in the hosue and a tie in the seante. Period.
If you think they can cram through anything with that, you are deluded. Look at the bribes and arm twisting it took this time, and that's with a 40 seat margin. Do you honestly thing after seeing so many of their buddies lose that it would even be close to possible for Pelosi to shive anythign through? And if she did, how would you avoid a Senate filibuster with the GOP only needing 40 votes and having 50 there?
No, the Senate basically Kills Pelosi dead if they can get to 50-50, and if the house drops to 1 vote margin, Pelosi will NOT be able to govern - there will always be that ONE vote in a Red area that will not go her way.
If the GOP gets power in the fall, how do you propose they overcome the same limits? They will nto be able to stop a Dem filibuster in the senate, and will nto have the votes to overcome an Obama veto of the repeal. Instead, they have to pass "compromises" to keep from being called obstructionists, and they soak the blame for any economic problems, cutting into their margins in 2012, as well as staining them as big spenderd: They pass spending cuts, Obama vetos them, then what is left - the GOP GIVES IN and get tarred wiht the same "big spender" brush, and they LOSE CREDIBILITY AGAIN on spending and debt, to the point where 2012 Obama runs against the GOP Congress, and wins. (See Clinton in 96)
Wake the hell UP! The real world is not the internet fantasyland where Obamacare repeal is a done deal just by saying so.
The best chance and only chance we have is a GOP sweep in 2012. And having the Dems crippled to the point whre they cannot pass anything effective, but still blamed for the mess the next 2 years (from their legislation of the past 2 years) is the best way to get there.
#23
No matter what happens, Obamacare is NOT going to be repealed with Obama in office.
The GOP will NOT get a veto-proof majority in the Senate, and its doubtful they will get that margin in the House, so any talk of repealing Obamacare is stupid until that changes.
#24
we get it - until this president is out of office or we get an override majority, it ain't happening. Luckily our Democrat Overlords front-loaded the hurt and backloaded the pain care. Crush them with their vote record
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2010 19:27 Comments ||
Top||
#25
One thing November is going to tell us is how his fellow Dems value The One, public polls aside.
"Hey Bob! Good news. I can get to your rally next week."
"Uhhh, Mr. President, I couldn't impose on you like that."
"No really. I can bring Nancy and we can explain Healthcare to them."
*click*
Another very interesting issue is how the Sarahcuda will deploy herself. (She sure ain't taking orders from the mothership.) She alienates some moderates but it's not hard to think of a lot of districts where an appearance by her would be the political equivalent of a drone strike.
And although I joke, this is one where each of us has to go all out and then some.
Posted by: Matt ||
04/18/2010 19:50 Comments ||
Top||
#26
A DNC slight majority ceases to be workable if the filibuster is eliminated. There is already rumblings that it will happen in the near term possibly during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
The Republicans will need a majority in at least one house to stop the train wreck. I would prefer a majority in the house where all spending bills originate. A majority in the Senate would include too many people like Lindsay Graham would want to step accross the aisle and facilitate Cap and Trade.
My expectation is that Cap and Trade and Obamacare are a fact of life through 2012. Cardcheck and probably an amnesty will be passed through the lameduck Congress once the filibuster is eliminated. The nasty stuff will occur after the election but before January.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/18/2010 20:16 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Wake up? We're not asleep. We know Obamacare can't be repealed in today's climate even if we win big in November. It's still a good slogan to run on..."Repeal and Replace".
Wake up! We're going to slaughter the Dems in November!
#28
Vote Early! Vote Often!
That saying makes me I'll everytime I read it. I know it's a joke but the Dems have tried election shennanigins so often. We're becoming third world before our eyes and it makes me sad.
We don't need one. All we need is control of the House. All spending bills start there--or in the case of ObamaCare, end there. We defund it. Obama will go for the stand off. Good luck with that. Eventually either Obama blinks (unlikely) or enough Dems get sick of the government being shutdown that they join the vote to repeal.
Repeal is priority #1. Nothing else matters until we re-privative health care.
#1
"Absence of U.S. flag in Haiti sparks controversy"
Quite right it's not flying, too. After all, Haiti would be just ashalf asmorericher than the US itselfmuch better off had the US jackboot not been on her throat for the last, um, thousand years. US aid workers should be muttering apologies to every Haitian they meet. They should be ashamed of themselves.
#2
This is the sort of nonsense that happens when you have a President that hates the nation he's the head of. Barry grew up believing that America was evil and represented nothing good. He came to Washington dead set on destroying US.
Posted by: Jefferson ||
04/18/2010 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Offer them statehood immediately. Sending the military in twice a year is too expensive. Send a flight of ladies from Remax down their and maybe they can come up with a plan that will allow us to spruce it up a bit. With some staging maybe we can convince the Dominicans to take it off our hands. The Hatiaan's can then master the corner infield positions that the Dominicans aren't interested in playing.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/18/2010 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
You've got a point about the Remax ladies (and gentlemen). As a group, they are the best in the retail real estate business.
#5
We have always been able to provide a certain amount of temporary social stability to Haiti but our committment to leave them to their own affairs has provided demonstrably poor results.
The need ten years of MacArthur and some dollars to build some sneaker factories to start. We ought to fund a two day field trip to Belize for all their school age children as a demonstration that their country doesn't necessarily need to remain in outhouse condition.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/18/2010 20:42 Comments ||
Top||
"Ninety percent of the electronic media in this country is owned, operated, programmed and controlled by conservatives," MSNBC's Ed Schultz told the audience of a recent National Action Network panel discussion.
And just how did this happen?
According to Schultz, conservatives, "made a concerted effort during and before the Reagan years that they were going to get the microphone."
The Fairness Doctrine-supporting liberal talker went on to argue that conservative talk radio and Fox News are successful not because they appeal to what a broad swath of America is already thinking, but because it programs the thinking of the right from the top-down.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm going to have to wait for Rush to say something about this before I decide if I'm upset or not.
#2
Die Deutsche Wochenshau... nothing more. More meaningless blah blah blah.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
04/18/2010 0:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
wishful thinking or willful self delusion?
the liberal worldview collapses if they don not believe this. if fox etc are successful because they appeal to the majority of people then they would have to accept they are outside the mainstream, and like the twit from new york who 'didnt know a single person who had voted for Reagan' the pain of reality is not something they could bear.
Posted by: abu do you love ||
04/18/2010 0:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Nice to see someone else who understands the brittle need of the postmodern left to maintain their narrative perfectly intact to prevent it from falling apart utterly.
Thanks, Abu.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
04/18/2010 7:33 Comments ||
Top||
#5
MSNBC's Schultz: Conservative Own 90% of Media;
#6
MSNBC's Schultz: Conservative Own 90% of Media;
It's a matter of perspective. If you are that far left of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, then most everyone looks 'conservative'. This pretty much self identifies the individual on that spectrum.
#7
According to Schultz, conservatives, "made a concerted effort during and before the Reagan years that they were going to get the microphone."
Oh yeah, there's that vast right-wing conservative thing again! Except for MSNBC,CBS, ABC, NYTs, yada yada yada and all the other MSM trumpeteers for Obama. Liberal talk radio has been a failure because it does not reflect the interests of many people--and it has been an utterly boring failure. The socialists have never quite grasped the free-market concept where things are demand-driven.
"How am I gonna get viewers if you let them have a choice?"
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2010 10:29 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Guys like Limbaugh used to own nothing, but practiced conservative principles and now own a whole lot - whether of the media or anything else 90%? - not so sure, but a lot. Liberals - not so much.
#13
The mental exercise of the American liberal is about 10% auto-erotic..I don't mean that in the "I'm gonna make love to this bar of soap" but the self reinforced romantic image of themself as the hero in their own movie. Goal Projection or something like that - see yourself there.
(What they don't understand is that if they were to be in a liberal movie the two decades of stingy controlled lifestyle will be a 2 minute interlude between drunken off comments at the bar/weed shop/grocery store parking lot etc insert defining moment location)
60% would be what I call dedicated to unrealism, where useful and common symbols are used to deconstruct the environment to find the simple, the lowest common denomenator, and reality can be bent around themes. In its good form think satire or stand up philosophers comedians - in order to properly enjoy the experience a person must temporarily enter into a suspension of reality to follow a narrative then compare the final experience with reality again after the show. Ats its worse the suspension becomes the reality, very similar to drug addicts. It is a completely unnatural mental state as evolution/programming what have you has humans naturally tuned into a big world hunting reality.
Not saying these mental gymnastics are not usefule in situations but when 70% of one's mental output is into dilusion of reality then the proportion is way out of whack.
So with that mindset, Shultz may be right. 90% of the media out there is probably more conservative than Schultz's writer's and editors agree with (thats right Schultz I think you just read the stuff...barely). But the reality suspension is more the ignoring that likely 90% of the money spent for media projects is liberal in nature.
Otherwise we would not be sitting here wondering how much longer Pelosi et al is going to be in explaining what was in the bill now that it has passed. Otherwise there would be smart questions like Speaker Pelosi, do you know how a refrigerator works or when it breaks down how to fix one? Calling Joe cannot be an answer.
#14
Otherwise we would not be sitting here wondering how much longer Pelosi et al is going to be in explaining what was in the bill now that it has passed.
Explain the bill,hell. Release Pelosi's passenger manifest. I'd be happy with that!
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
